Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the promotion of Major General Robert T. Clark to Lieutenant General in the United States Army, which is pending consideration by the Senate. On October 23, 2003, the Senate Committee on Armed Services voted to favorably report General Clark's promotion for consideration by the Senate. The vote taken was a voice vote. I asked, however, that the record reflect that had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted to oppose this promotion.

Mr. President, I have deep respect and admiration for our military leaders. I have often said that anyone who achieves the rank of a flag or general officer deserves a Ph.D. for the amount of education and training they have successfully completed to attain such distinguished rank. In my capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus, I have had the privilege of working with many of our nation's most respected military leaders.

This has been a difficult decision for me. General Clark's promotion has been pending consideration before the Senate Armed Services Committee for 14 months. Military promotions are usually very simple to consider, and are rarely troublesome or controversial. I normally do not hear from my constituency about a military promotion. In this case, however, I was contacted by a number of my constituents asking me to oppose General Clark's promotion, primarily for his actions as Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, during a difficult time when Private First Class Barry Winchell was murdered. For this reason, I made sure that I had the opportunity to review as much material as possible pertaining to General Clark's career as well as the facts surrounding the incident that led to PFC Winchell's death.

In March 2003, I joined some of my colleagues in writing a letter to the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to request information regarding the specific actions General Clark took to eliminate the climate of anti-gay harassment that existed at Fort Campbell prior to PFC Winchell's death; statements General Clark made regarding anti-gay harassment to officers, soldiers, and the public; the policies he promulgated addressing this issue; other steps he took to prevent further acts of violence and harassment; how he handled the Winchell case in comparison to other serious crimes occurring during his command; and his response, as well as the response of those around him, to requests by PFC Winchell's family to meet with him. I reviewed the information provided and participated in an Executive Session held on October 23, 2003, where General Clark was available for questions.

After reviewing all of the information and listening to General Clark's testimony, I decided that I could not support his promotion to Lieutenant General. General Clark's professional record reflects many distinguished accomplishments as a military officer. However, I remain concerned about his lack of what I believe to be leadership qualities that are necessary for today's military leaders.

I remain disturbed by General Clark's continued reliance on lack of knowledge regarding misconduct and anti-gay harassment on post as a rationale for his lack of action. General Clark had been in command of the 101st Airborne Division for 17 months prior to PFC Winchell's death. While I understand a Commanding General is not responsible for the individual actions of his soldiers, I firmly believe that a Commanding General sets the tone on an installation and can influence what his soldiers believe will be considered "acceptable" behavior. I was disturbed to learn of repeated instances of underage drinking and harassment, and of the assessment, particularly of those soldiers in PFC Winchell's unit, of the command climate prior to PFC Winchell's death.

I am also disturbed by General Clark's refusal to take responsibility for the incident. During his tenure as Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki took responsibility for what happened to PFC Winchell. This reflects official Army policy that commanders at all levels are accountable for everything their command does or fails to do. As a leader, I believe General Clark should have taken responsibility or expressed accountability for the circumstances that led to this PFC Winchell's death.

I believe his failure to initiate a meeting with PFC Winchell's family reflects poor leadership on his part. His position as convening authority did not prevent him from meeting with the parents of a soldier murdered on an installation over which he had command and responsibility.

Again, General Clark's record reflects that he has led a distinguished military career. However, I do not believe his actions as the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, warrant his promotion to Lieutenant General.